Is the IRS Blocking Opposing Israel Viewpoints?

Posted on 08/30/2010 by Rabbi Kaufman

Z Street, run by my friend Lori Lowenthal Marcus, made the decision to apply for 501c3 status as a tax exempt organization several months ago. This week, her organization filed suit against the IRS over what it considers to be a lengthy delay, if not blockage, of its application, and over the reasons that it contends were offered by the IRS which it feels are discriminatory. This situation has received no little attention in the Jewish world and for good reason. You may find an article about Z Street’s suit on their website.

What is going on? More than likely, a lower level IRS agent did not do a good job of explaining the administration’s position or perhaps does not understand it well enough to do so, but the length of the process and specific attention given this organization is of concern even if her actions are in keeping with proper procedures. It is possible that there is more to this case, but we will see as the suit progresses.

In my view, it is reasonable for the IRS to try to determine whether or not an organization applying for a 501c3, tax exempt status as a not-for-profit organization, actually qualifies. The IRS must investigate thoroughly and that may take no little time. However, it is not remotely legal for the administration to make approval of an organization’s legal status dependent upon its adherence to the policies of the administration, something that Z Street contends is happening, nor to drag on the process indefinitely because of disagreement with its policies. If this accusation against the IRS is true, and Lori assures me that it is, then what is going on is not merely problematic, but illegal.

In the meantime, there are concerns that should be addressed. Is it problematic that the application for 501c3 status for an Israel advocacy organization may involve specific inquiry into the policies advocated by the organization with the assumption that some policies may result in the rejection of an application? It seems to me that the answer is definitely, “Yes.” An obvious policy issue might be advocacy for the maintenance or growth of West Bank settlements. If an organization is going to provide funding for programs or projects in settlements does it risk 501c3 status? If it merely advocates for Israel keeping them as part of Israel and not withdrawing from the West Bank at some future date, does that jeopardize tax exempt status? What if it argues that the policies of the current administration are not good? Does that jeopardize its status?

There are some obvious policies that might jeopardize status for ANY organization seeking tax exempt status, such as support for terrorism or violence against the United States. But barring such an extreme, where are the lines to be drawn? And if the reasoning here is that there is an assumption of an attempt to influence policy on the part of Israel advocacy organizations and therefore all are assumed to be  lobbying organizations, this thought process fails miserably because as much could be said for any social service organization; namely that they are interested in influencing policy through education at some level. Where is the line between educational organization and lobbying organization to be drawn?

We will hear more about this case.

You can find the full legal brief from the Z Street case at this link. There is a brief article in the Forward explaining some of the potential reasoning on the IRS side which you may find here.

Posted in Israel | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the IRS Blocking Opposing Israel Viewpoints?

Monday, briefly

Posted on 08/30/2010 by Meryl Yourish

And there we have it: The preconditions are back. Actually, they never left. Mahmoud Abbas says he will exit peace talks if Israel resumes “settlement” building, even on the parts of land that Abbas has already said he will swap with Israel. The point, of course, is that the Palestinians do not want the peace talks to succeed. Because their international gravy train would end once Israel is no longer the enemy that is oppressing their drive for statehood. The funds have already dried up, due to the worldwide recession and the fact that the Arabs have always reneged on their agreements to support the Palestinians financially.

Oh, look, another precondition: Abbas apparently wants to base the peace talks on the Quartet’s March declaration, which was not in any way agreed to by Israel. Color me unsurprised.

Oh, look—the State Department found incitement it can condemn: Funny how the State Dept. can’t ever seem to condemn the many, many instances of Jew-hatred and eliminationist rhetoric about Israel from the Palestinians, but let one rabbi in Israel utter nasty comments about the Palestinians, why, that’s something the State Dept. can condemn as “incitement”—because those Israeli terror attacks against Palestinians are so very, very numerous. We really have to worry about inciting the Israelis against the Palestinians. Why, the next thing you know, Israelis will be naming streets after Baruch Goldstein, or something. It’s been what, 16 years since his attack? Any day now. It’s not at all like the good, honorable Mahmoud Abbas, who recently attended the funeral of one of the masterminds of the Munich Olympics terror attack.

Weapons caches in the Sinai, yawns in the world media: The smuggling continues, as the world pretends that there is no need to blockade Gaza. Nope. Nothing at all. Weapons smuggling? Lies the Israelis made up to imprison the Gazans in “the world’s largest prison camp.” Anti-aircraft missiles? Well, Israel has helicopters and jets, so that’s just the Palestinians going for self-defense, right? Shyeah.

Let’s you and him fight: The JPost reports that Syria and Hezbollah have agreed to attack Israel together. Yeah, the Dorktator is all about openly attacking Israel with weapons… I’m calling BS on this one—unless the Iranians get the bomb, in which case all hell breaks loose.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, palestinian politics | Tagged , | Comments Off on Monday, briefly

Abuminah’s abominable op-ed

Posted on 08/29/2010 by Soccerdad

Ali Abuminah, the founder of the anti-Israel website, Electronic Intifada, has been given op-ed space in the New York Times. In that space he has written the highly misleading, Hamas, the I.R.A. and Us. I will have to disagree with some of my allies, as this is not the lowest the New York Times has sunk; the Times has given op-ed space to an actual member of Hamas, not just one of its sympathizers. (via memeorandum)

Abuminah writes:

Mr. Mitchell’s comparison is misleading at best. Success in the Irish talks was the result not just of determination and time, but also a very different United States approach to diplomacy.

The conflict in Northern Ireland had been intractable for decades. Unionists backed by the British government saw any political compromise with Irish nationalists as a danger, one that would lead to a united Ireland in which a Catholic majority would dominate minority Protestant unionists. The British government also refused to deal with the Irish nationalist party Sinn Fein, despite its significant electoral mandate, because of its close ties to the Irish Republican Army, which had carried out violent acts in the United Kingdom.

A parallel can be seen with the American refusal to speak to the Palestinian party Hamas, which decisively won elections in the West Bank and Gaza in 2006. Asked what role Hamas would have in the renewed talks, Mr. Mitchell answered with one word: “None.” No serious analyst believes that peace can be made between Palestinians and Israelis without Hamas on board, any more than could have been the case in Northern Ireland without Sinn Fein and the I.R.A.

This is the heart of his specious claim: Hamas is just like the IRA and just like the IRA was convinced to make peace by being engaged instead of shunned, so too Hamas must be engaged in order to make peace in the Middle East.

Well for this analysis to hold, for one thing, Hamas and the I.R.A. ought to be comparable. They’re not.

All these contrasts come back to the one major difference between the IRA and Hamas — religion. For the Irish, religion is not rooted in all facets of life as it is in with Israelis and Palestinians. Religion in Northern Ireland is understood as a cultural and historical force, while in the Middle East it ties Israelis and Palestinians to the same land. Furthermore, Hamas being a religious organization claims religious justifications for attempting to wipe out Israel. This factor is what differentiates the two groups and will ultimately prove how futile Hamas’ reform efforts are.

Z-Word lays out how the concession to Gerry Addams would translate into terms of the Arab-Israeli conflict:

The concession of the visa to Adams, for a trip which involved nothing more than glad handing Irish American supporters of the Provisional Republican movement, may well have improved the mood of certain sectors of Sinn Féin – IRA with regard to calling a ceasefire. If the concession of US visa to Ismail Haniye for a trip that would allow him some tea drinking and back slapping with Arab American supporters were likely to lead to a complete Hamas ceasefire leading to something like a Good Friday deal between Israel and Hamas, I’d be all for it.

Let’s just remind ourselves what Sinn Féin – IRA settled for in the Good Friday Agreement. They recognized Northern as an integral part of the UK, decommissioned their weapons and dissolved the military structure of the IRA. In return they got the early release of their prisoners (on license, any return to violence by the main Provisional Republican movement and they’ll be straight back in the can), some policing reforms, a couple of cross border talking shops and an autonomous local assembly.

I’ll try to translate that into the situation of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hamas accepts that the West Bank and Gaza (why not?) form part of Greater Israel, a Jewish state. Hamas abandons the armed struggle and hands over its weapons to UN monitors. Israel sets up an autonomous Palestine parliament to rule the territories. As well as representative to that assembly Palestinians also get to elect some members to take care of their interests in the Knesset. In return, Israel releases Hamas’s prisoners on parole, guarantees that a larger percentage of Magav recruits will be Arabs and promises to make greater efforts to promote the Arabic language and Arab culture in Israel.

Abuminah argues that John Hume – a negotiator of the peace accord for Northern Ireland – wrote an op-ed advocating for Israeli recognition of Hamas. However, that isn’t the unanimous position of all those involved. David Trimble, also Nobel Lauereate for his efforts wrote:

If there is one lesson to learn from the Northern Ireland experience, it is that preconditions are crucial in ending violence and producing a settlement. Being overgenerous to extremist groups is like giving sweets to a spoilt child in the hope that it will improve its behaviour – it usually results in worse actions. Our experience suggests that while some flexibility is desirable, there have to be clear principles and boundaries. A failure to recognise this risks drawing the wrong conclusions from the recent history of Northern Ireland and fundamentally misunderstanding the peace process.

This is also the view of former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (h/t Daled Amos):

Could I just add one thing to that, if I may? Of course, negotiation is far, far better — infinitely better — than military action. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we welcome hugely the progress that has been made following the Good Friday Agreement. It also has to be said that before that happened, there had to be a change of approach by those who saw terrorism as the answer. And that approach partly changed because of the firmness of the military and police response to that terrorism. And if there had not been that firm response by successive British governments and others to the terrorist threat that was posed on both sides, we would not have been able to get some of those people into negotiations. We would not be marking what is a satisfactory day in the history of Northern Ireland today.

Fresno Zionism attacks Abuminah’s claim of the sanctity of the Palestinian right of return.

You must give Abumimah and his friends credit for chutzpah: first, they invent a ‘right’ — the repatriation of the descendants of refugees from a war that their own leaders caused — that has never existed in history, then they breed a whole population in misery for years to make a demographic weapon of mass destruction out of them, and finally they demand that they be allowed to use it to end the Jewish state. What will remain for them to ‘recognize’?

Naturally, he believes that the reason the US was tough on the British but will not get tough on Israel is the nefarious Jewish (OK, he says ‘Israel’) Lobby. Hamas knew about the Jewish Lobby all along.

Balfour Street makes a similar argument.

Elder of Ziyon gets to the heart of the matter with a single rhetorical question:

So according to Abunimah, for Israel to ask its negotiating partners to not demand its violent destruction is “unworkable”?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome | Tagged | Comments Off on Abuminah’s abominable op-ed

If it’s Sunday, this must be media bias

Posted on 08/29/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Can the AP ever hold the bias? Ever? Regarding Bibi Netanyahu’s proposal to meet with Abbas every two week, the AP writes:

The Israeli leader’s proposal appears to indicate that he is serious about the talks and won’t allow them to fizzle out after next week’s meeting in the U.S.

In every story, the AP doubts Netanyahu’s seriousness. In zero stories, the AP doubts Abbas’ seriousness, even though in the very next paragraph, they write:

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said he hadn’t heard about the proposal but would be open to the idea. “We are not against this in principle, it’s just premature to talk about this now,” Erekat told The Associated Press.

So you see, the Palestinians are serious, even though the closest they can come to saying “Hey! What a great idea!” is “We are not against this in principle.” Does that sound like seriousness to you? Does that sound like wanting to reach an agreement?

No. But that violates the narrative, so the AP must instead insert its own editorial views in what is supposed to be a fact-based piece, and those editorial views are decidedly pro-Palestinian.

Posted in AP Media Bias, Israel | Comments Off on If it’s Sunday, this must be media bias

What I did on my summer vacation

Posted on 08/28/2010 by Meryl Yourish

It’s been a productive weekend already, and I’m not even halfway through.

I bought a new computer desk Thursday, and Sarah came over to help set it up yesterday. In point of fact, Sarah came over with the kids and set up my computer desk while I kept the kids fed and busy and occasionally went upstairs to say, “Do you need me to help you with anything?” and she responded, “No, I’m good.” This is because she is handy, and I am not. I can’t stand doing things like putting together computer desks. Before I even bought one, I asked her if she would put it together for me, because that would completely affect the type of desk I would buy, and the type of store I would buy it from. Having a friend that likes to work with her hands is a wonderful thing. As I said yesterday, we trade services—she puts my desk together, and I take care of her kids. Works for me.

I realized this morning that my old desk (which is going into the guest room) is about twenty-five years old. I bought it when I bought my first PC, which, I think, was in 1984. Might have been 1985. Yes, I’ve been computing longer than millions of Americans were alive. I’ve been online since the modem days of 1986. I fought it for months after my friends were into the BBS world, because I knew I’d get hopelessly addicted to being online and spend hours and hours and hours a week on it. I was not wrong.

And now we come to the Saturday morning duh. My FIOS router is upstairs in my office. I unplugged it while moving the desks, and left it unplugged until last night because we wound up going to the county fair last night (and a big woo-hoo! to Sarah for winning the blue ribbon with her brownies). When I got home and wanted to blog, I plugged it in and tried to get online. Connected to Fred, no problem, but I couldn’t get a page to save my life. After a few minutes, I gave up and did some other things on the computer and went to bed. This morning, after feeding the cats, I tried again. And failed again. I could not for the life of me figure out what was wrong. Then I went to the local admin page, which is internal, and so doesn’t need a modem. Finally, something caught my eye. The word “COAX.”

I am so glad I didn’t call Verizon over this. That would have been so embarrassing. I never reconnected the coaxial cable, so sure, the router was sending Fred perfectly, but it didn’t have any broadband to pass along while it was at it. Here’s a tip to my readers: You really need to plug the damned cable into the router if you want to have a wireless network. I can vouch for that.

In any case, Sarah’s coming over for part two of the new desk (I got two, they’re going in an L shape in my office so that this computer can finally go upstairs where it belongs), and we’ll be watching movies as well, along with my niece (and new driver) Sorena. Girls movie afternoon. There will be popcorn.

Posted in Life | 3 Comments

You don’t have to dig so deep to find antisemitism though

Posted on 08/27/2010 by Soccerdad

The attack on a cabbie and the desecration of a mosque have led some hysterical folks to suggest that the debate over the Ground Zero Mosque has unleashed a tide of anti-Islam behavior. (via memeorandum)

Jonah Goldberg, though, throws some cold water on the hysteria. (via Daily Alert blog)

Let’s put this in even sharper focus. America is, outside of Israel ,probably the most receptive and tolerant country in the world to Jews. And yet, in every year since 9/11, more Jews have been hate-crime victims than Muslims. A lot more.

In 2001, there were twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as there were anti-Muslim, again according to the FBI. In 2002 and pretty much every year since, anti-Jewish incidents have outstripped anti-Muslim ones by at least 6 to 1. Why aren’t we talking about the anti-Jewish climate in America?

Because there isn’t one. And there isn’t an anti-Muslim climate either. Yes, there’s a lot of heated rhetoric on the Internet. Absolutely, some Americans don’t like Muslims. But if you watch TV or movies or read, say, the op-ed page of the New York Times — never mind left-wing blogs — you’ll hear much more open bigotry toward evangelical Christians (in blogspeak, the “Taliban wing of the Republican Party”) than you will toward Muslims.

Of course, he could point to what’s happening in Europe and note that the anti-Israel “reporting” is even worse there than it is here. I don’t doubt that the blatant misrepresentations of Israel that pass for “reporting” play some role in feeding the resurgent antisemitism in Europe. But no one who is concerned for Islamaphobia, is truly much concerned about demonstrated antisemitism.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Tagged | 5 Comments

Friday three-day weekend briefs

Posted on 08/27/2010 by Meryl Yourish

It’s a three-day weekend for me. I took the day off. Sarah is going to help me put together my new computer desk. That would be because I know which end of a screwdriver to hold, and how to turn it, but I am utterly useless at knowing which piece fits into which when putting something together.

And yet, QUIT gays support the Palestinians: An Israeli teacher is getting a sex change and sent a letter to his students that he would be teaching them as a woman in the upcoming semester. Imagine that happening in any other nation in the Middle East. Wait, there is at least one Muslim nation that allows sex changes, but I can’t remember which. Homosexuality, though, is illegal in all of them.

Shut up, you anti-Arab racist: Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman points out that Palestinian incitement continues. (So does Palestine Media Watch, but the media like to ignore PMW reports or whitewash or downplay them.) He discusses about the upcoming peace talks and will most likely be slammed for being an obstacle to peace or something.

Are you effing kidding me? The Obama administration is going to push Israel to sign an agreement now, and worry about the details later. Shyeah, because that will work. Sort of like the Road Map, which was forced down Israel’s throat. Or forcing Israel to freeze settlement building to get the Palestinians to direct talks—gee, that only took ten months.

This time, Obama plans to get into the thick of things himself. Daniel Shapiro, the National Security Council’s top Middle East expert, told the leaders of the American Jewish organizations that the president planned to visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the coming year.

During his visit, Obama will try to convince the two sides to support painful concessions for the sake of peace.

Really? “Painful concessions” for both sides? What concessions will the Palestinians make? Giving up their long-held dream of flooding Israel with “refugees” who are actually third-generation citizens of other nations? Stopping the daily hatred and incitement? Or perhaps giving up the handouts the leadership uses to feather its nests? And hey, what about Gaza? How does that figure into the formula? Is the Palestinian state going to be only on the West Bank?

Can you imagine the crowds waiting in Israel to boo Obama? Does this man’s ego know no bounds? He thinks that his personal touch will solve the problem of Palestinian intransigence and the Arab world’s refusal to normalize relations with Israel? For an excellent analysis of why the peace talks will fail, read Barry Rubin post. Or better still, someone should send it to the president. Tell him to save the effort and just visit Israel for the hell of it.

Posted in Gaza, Israel, The One | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

The subtle anti-Israel bias of the mainstream media

Posted on 08/27/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Check out this description in an AP article about a 3,500-year-old Egyptian trading post. See if you can detect the incredibly subtle anti-Israel bias:

The settlement sheds light on ancient Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period (1600-1569 B.C.), when the Egyptian pharaohs were trapped between the Hyksos invaders of Asia in the north and a Nubian kingdom in the south. The oases and their trade routes were likely key to the survival of the Egyptian kingdom.

The ancient routes stretched from the Darfur region in Sudan through the oases and the Nile Valley up to the ancient Palestine and Syria, with long caravans of donkeys bringing wines, luxury goods and wealth along with them. It would at least be 1,000 years before the camel made its appearance.

Figured it out yet? “Ancient Palestine” did not exist in the timeframe the article is discussing. The Romans renamed Judea “Palestine” many centuries later. It would probably be more proper to call it the ancient Israel, or even Judea—but it sure as hell wasn’t known as “Palestine” 3,500 years ago.

This is how Israel becomes de-legitimized. The media chip away at Israel’s history, bit by bit by bit, until the anti-Israel voice drowns out the true history of the Middle East.

Darfur is a modern name. Sudan is a modern name. Israel is a modern name. One of these things, (according to the AP) however, is not like the other.

Posted in AP Media Bias, Israel | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The subtle anti-Israel bias of the mainstream media

Why Israel will never outsource her self-defense

Posted on 08/26/2010 by Meryl Yourish

This is why Israel will never outsource her defense: A book detailing the bombing of the Syrian nuclear reactor is coming out, and Ynet is excerpting it. The Bush administration tried to convince Israel not to bomb the reactor at first, saying Israel was exaggerating the threat.

In June 2007, PM Olmert traveled to Washington to present all the material gathered by Israel; at the conclusion of a lengthy discussion with President George W. Bush, Olmert informed the US president that he decided to strike the Syrian reactor. The Americans were still hesitant, however. Israel recommended a military strike, but the US refused. According to credible American sources, the White House eventually decided that “the US prefers not to strike.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates attempted to convince Israel to confront the Syrians, but not to attack.

That wasn’t enough evidence. Neither was this:

In July 2007, Israel held aerial patrols above the reactor and elicited images of the activity at the site via satellite Ofek 7. The images were analyzed by American and Israeli experts, who ruled that Syria is building a nuclear reactor based on the North Korean model. In fact, the experts reached the conclusion that the reactors were identical. Meanwhile, Israel’s intelligence-gathering Unit 8200 provided records of conversations between Syrian scientists and North Korea experts. This information was also handed over to Washington, but the Americans demanded unequivocal proof that the facility will be used as a nuclear reactor, and that nuclear materials are already at the site. Israel decided to supply this information as well.

What changed their minds? Israeli special forces landing in the desert and taking soil samples to prove the reactor was building nukes. But Israel had to have a “smoking gun” before the Bushies would act. This does not bode well at all for those who insist that the U.S. will protect Israel from a nuclear Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu has stated quite clearly that Israel will not rely on other nations to protect her. Jews have done that over the past several millennia, and it never ends well.

Posted in Israel, Syria | Tagged , | Comments Off on Why Israel will never outsource her self-defense

The bigoted non-bigots

Posted on 08/26/2010 by Soccerdad

Nina Shea in Ground Zero Mosque:Who’s in Charge? concludes:

Regarding the Ground Zero mosque, based on the information provided by the two partners in the project, we know very little about who will eventually be its directors, or who will fund it. It is the answers to these questions that will determine whether the Ground Zero mosque will be an “affront to extremists everywhere,” or, alternatively, whether it will threaten our homeland security by hindering our war against a dangerous idea that has “corrupted” Islam.

However, even if Imam Rauf is not going to play a significant role in the project, currently he (along with his wife) is the public face, so I don’t think it’s unfair to judge the project by Imam Rauf.

Jeffrey Goldberg defended Imam Rauf last week for saying at a memorial for Daniel Pearl, “I am a Jew.” (via memeorandum). Goldberg asserted that by making such a declaration, Imam Rauf put his own life in danger.

Daniel Pearl’s father, was impressed by the statement of solidarity. However, according the JTA (via Contentions) he doesn’t see it as enough:

Such appearances seem unlikely to sway at least one opponent of building an Islamic center so close to Ground Zero at this time — Judea Pearl, Daniel’s father and a computer science professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Pearl told JTA that while he was “touched” by Rauf’s appearance and speech at his son’s memorial, “many Muslim leaders offered their condolences at the time.” More to the point, Pearl said he is discouraged that the Muslim leadership has not followed through on what he hoped would come from his son’s death.

“At the time, I truly believed Danny’s murder would be a turning point in the reaction of the civilized world toward terrorism,” said Pearl, who engages in public conversations with Akbar Ahmed, an Islamic studies professor at American University, on behalf of the Daniel Pearl Dialogue for Muslim-Jewish Understanding. The established Muslim leadership in the United States, Pearl said, “has had nine years to build up trust by pro-actively resisting anti-American ideologies of victimhood, anger and entitlement.

Reactions to the mosque project indicate that they were not too successful in this endeavor.”

He views the controversy to be a vote of no confidence in the organized Muslim leadership, not specifically against Rauf.

Had the statement not just been a one time thing, it might have convinced Dr. Pearl that there had been a change is Islam. Apparently Dr. Pearl wanted to see actions to match the words.

Another surprising opponent of the Ground Zero Mosque, is civil libertarian, Nat Hentoff who writes in Am I also a bigot? (via memeorandum)

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg charges that opponents of Imam Rauf’s mosque “should be ashamed of themselves” and are bigots.

Me, too, Mr. Mayor?

If you want to join Speaker Pelosi in investigating me, your honor, I’d be glad to oblige. I’m just doing my job as a reporter. I wish more reporters had gone beneath the shouting on both sides. There’s another part of the First Amendment in addition to the free exercise of religion: The press is free to investigate the reasons for Imam Rauf’s fixation on the 9/11 location of his mosque.

And why does this location make Hamas glow?

I don’t think that anyone else would consider Judea Pearl and Nat Hentoff to be bigots. Yet by opposing (verbally) Park51, there are many of our political elite who would deem them bigots.

There’s a lot more to Imam Rauf and the Islamic Center than its supporters let on. By framing the issue as one of “religious tolerance” and conveniently deeming its opponents bigots, the Islamic Centers supporters are refusing to face uncomfortable facts about the project.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in American Scene | Tagged , | Comments Off on The bigoted non-bigots

Will’s still in Israel

Posted on 08/26/2010 by Soccerdad

Today he writes, In the Mideast the peace process is only a mirage:

The biggest threat to peace might be the peace process — or, more precisely, the illusion that there is one. The mirage becomes the reason for maintaining its imaginary “momentum” by extorting concessions from Israel, the only party susceptible to U.S. pressure. Israel is, however, decreasingly susceptible. In one month, history will recycle when the partial 10-month moratorium on Israeli construction on the West Bank expires. Resumption of construction — even here, in the capital, which was not included in the moratorium — will be denounced by a fiction, “the international community,” as a threat to another fiction, “the peace process.”

For Will’s previous columns in this series see here and here.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | Comments Off on Will’s still in Israel

Things you really ought to read

Posted on 08/25/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Tony Blair’s speech at Herzliya:

I often have a conversation about the West Bank which goes like this. Someone says: Israel must lift the occupation. I reply: I agree but it has to be sure that when it does so, there will be security and a Palestinian force capable of preventing terrorism. They say: so you’re supporting occupation. I say: I’m not: I’m simply pointing out that if Hamas, with an unchanged position on Israel, were running the West Bank, Israel would have a perfectly legitimate right to be concerned about it’s security.

A constant conversation I have with some, by no means all, of my European colleagues is to argue to them: don’t apply rules to the Government of Israel that you would never dream of applying to your own country. In any of our nations, if there were people firing rockets, committing acts of terrorism and living next door to us, our public opinion would go crazy. And any political leader who took the line that we shouldn’t get too excited about it, wouldn’t last long as a political leader. This is a democracy. Israel lost 1000 citizens to terrorism in the intifada. That equates in UK population terms to 10,000. I remember the bomb attacks from Republican terrorism in the 1970’s. There weren’t many arguing for a policy of phlegmatic calm.

So the issue of de-legitimisation is not simply about an overt denial of the State of Israel. It is the application of prejudice in not allowing that Israel has a point of view that should be listened to.

The New Yorker Ahmadinejad interview.

The Michael Totten Jonathan Spyer interview.

Posted in Iran, Israeli Double Standard Time | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Briefly

Posted on 08/25/2010 by Meryl Yourish

And yet, gays still support Queers for Palestine: Israel, the only country in the Middle East that protects gays’ civil rights, rescued a gay Israeli Arab from his family after they kidnapped and beat him. Oh, and they arrested his family on kidnapping charges. But sure, go protest against Israel. Because the Ramallah Gay Pride Parade is going to happen any century now.

Nukes for the whole Middle East! On the heels of the Iranian Bushehr reactor going online, we have Hassan Nasrallah calling for Lebanon to get a nuclear power plant, and Egypt finalizing the site of its first nuclear power plant. All right, Obama! Your strategy is working just fine, if your strategy was to bash Israel over nukes while turning a blind eye to the rest of the Middle East getting nukes. No way this ends well.

Is she dumb, stupid, or all three? Catherine Ashton is defending the organizer of the weekly Bilin protests against the separation fence as a “human rights defender.” The richest part of the statement? Ashton says the imprisonment is “intended to prevent him and other Palestinians from exercising their legitimate right to protest against the existence of the separation barriers in a non-violent manner.” Non-violent? Puh-leeze. Google “If it’s Friday, this must be Bilin” on my site and see how many hits you get. Let’s see. Broken leg. Stoning. Defending terrorists (and stoning). Riots. More stonings. And that’s just a cursory search. Say, Cath—“nonviolent”? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Iran isn’t even pretending that Hezbollah acts on its own anymore: Iran is readying itself to complete the takeover of Lebanon. It has publicly announced it’s ready to sell arms to the Lebanese army. If the world does nothing, it will. So the big question is: Will the UN ignore the public Iranian funding of Hezbollah? (I’m betting yes.)

Posted in Iran, Israel, Lebanon | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Peace is coming, why am I annoyed?

Posted on 08/24/2010 by Soccerdad

In Mideast Talks to look forward to? David Makovsky writes:

Security cooperation between the PA and Israel has substantially improved. In 2002, 410 Israelis were killed by suicide bombings and other attacks emanating from the West Bank; in the past three years, Israel has suffered one fatality from one such attack. Speaking in Washington this year, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the situation on the ground “is better than any time in the past.” Israeli charges that the Palestinians have a “revolving door” approach of releasing terrorists after quick arrests — rampant during the Arafat era — are no longer heard. A Palestinian nonviolent protest movement has been born.

What’s missing from this? Well between 2002 and now, Israel fought Operation Defensive Shield, which seriously damaged the terror organizations in the areas under Palestinian Authority’s control. Israel also has been building its much maligned security fence. If it hadn’t been for Israeli actions, there would be Palestinian security apparatus to cooperate with. But not mentioning the actions Israel has taken, Makovsky implicitly affirms that there is not military solution to terrorism. But Israel’s defensive measures have been successful.

Makovsky writes further:

Religious and education reforms have started, including a major effort to identify those imams who agitate for suicide bombings. PA Religion Minister Mahmoud Habbash told me, and Israeli security officials confirm, that such imams have been removed from all Palestinian mosques under PA jurisdiction. “Hamas has been running our mosques for 30 years, and we are trying to take the mosques back so they are used only for prayer,” Habbash told me.

The PA has begun reshaping the curriculum of Palestinian institutions that accredit imams, and screening is also being conducted to weed out schoolteachers who support Hamas radicalism. PA security officials say 1,100 of the 28,000 Palestinian teachers in the West Bank have been replaced. Incitement would be further reduced if, among other things, the practice of naming town squares and camps after the killers of yesteryear ended.

I don’t know how accurate the claim that inciting imams have been removed from PA mosques. PMW reported last month that a PA imam said:

“The Al-Aqsa Mosque is threatened by the plans of the enemies of Allah [the Jews], who have violated all faith and religious laws, and even deviated from their humanity.”

Perhaps my threshhold for incitement is lower than that of the Palestinian Religion Minister.

More troublesome though, is that over the past 17 years we’ve been told that Israel didn’t do this or didn’t do that for peace. Yet by Makovsky’s account, the fundamental job of preparing its people for peace has been absent from from the PA. I’m less than convinced how effectively or completely the PA is fighting incitement, but if they’re doing it now, it’s because they made no effort before now.

There are two issues that are not about quiet policy shifts but will require conditioning of the populations: Jerusalem and refugees — the narrative issues of the conflict that cut to the self-definition of the parties. The difficulties surrounding these issues have led some to question Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s call to complete the talks in one year. But the hope is that progress on security and borders will facilitate political traction on these thornier topics.

If, however, that does not happen, the parties need to find ways to grapple with these final issues in a manner that does not cause other progress to unravel.

I think here that Makovsky’s acknowledging that no final agreement is possible at this time. Certainly not in a year’s time.

Barry Rubin explains why not:

–Hamas announces that since it totally rejects direct talks (much less any peace with Israel) as treason, it is stopping its own negotiations with the PA for cooperation or merger. This shows clearly that the PA cannot reach any deal with Israel (even if it wanted to do so) and deliver on its commitments because of the Hamas factor. Do also remember that not only does Hamas run the Gaza Strip but also has a very large base of support in the PA-ruled West Bank.

–Far from welcoming talks and expressing his eagerness to make peace and live alongside Israel, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas explains that he only requested permission from his true masters (the Fatah leadership) to go to talks for one month. It should be clearly understood that the Fatah leaders include three groups: old companions of Yasir Arafat, ideological hardliners, and perhaps about ten percent relative moderates. It doesn’t want to make a permanent compromise peace with Israel.

–Some Fatah leaders are claiming that even this one-month permission isn’t valid since there wasn’t a quorum at the relevant meeting. In some cases, leaders stayed away on purpose so they could block direct negotiations.

–Other PA and Fatah leaders are unhappy that the U.S. officials claimed there were no preconditions for direct talks since the Palestinians wanted to be given everything (especially the 1967 borders and a state whether or not negotiations succeeded) in advance. Basically, they only want to accept a state from Western hands without any real compromises with Israel (recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, permanent end of conflict, settlement of all Palestinian refugees in Palestine, border changes, non-militarization, and security guarantees).

Prof Rubin adds that there may be a benefit to having talks and for the West to be promoting them, but the conditions are not right now for there to be any hopes of a quick and final agreement between israel and the Palestinians.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged , | Comments Off on Peace is coming, why am I annoyed?

The starving Gazan myth respun

Posted on 08/24/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Piggybacking on the latest media spin that Gazans weren’t really starving, but they’re being humiliated, the AP puts out a story about the narrative being challenged. The AP does its job perfectly, making sure that you realize that the Gaza mall is nothing special, made out of old buildings, and just ignore the fact that the starving Gazans can buy $80 bottles of perfume (more than I’d ever spend!) there.

Gaza Mall sparks debate over Israeli blockade
Palestinians in this blockaded territory can now buy $80 bottles of perfume, Turkish-made suits and Israeli yogurt at the new Gaza Mall. But with only two floors of shops connected by a broken elevator and a staircase, Gaza’s first shopping center is a far cry from the sprawling luxury malls famous elsewhere in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, for the war-battered residents of the impoverished coastal strip, it is a symbol of pride and normalcy. But the mall has become more than just a modest attempt at a shopper’s paradise. Since its opening last month, it has become the focus of an argument over how bad things really are in Gaza.

So how bad are things? Terrible, says the Palestinian quoted in the article. Really awful. Horrifically horrible!

“People say there are no problems because Gaza has mayonnaise and ketchup,” said Gaza dentist Samir Ziara, 59, while browsing the mall’s supermarket. “If you lock someone in a room but take care of all of his basic needs, is that enough to make him happy?”

Oh, wait—the Gazans aren’t starving anymore? There’s not a humanitarian crisis? They’re simply—unhappy? Wait, wait—howcome the Gazans can’t leave? Did the AP cover the history of exactly why Gazans are unable to enter Israel and Egypt freely?

Of course they did.

The economy in the impoverished territory has been in decline since Hamas militants overran the strip in 2007 and Israel and Egypt responded with a strict blockade. Most of Gaza’s merchandise was then smuggled in through tunnels under the Egyptian border.

Then a deadly Israeli raid on a flotilla seeking to break the blockade in May drew widespread international criticism, and Israel loosened restrictions on consumer goods – many of which can now be bought at the new mall.

Hm. I think there’s something missing in that narrative. Let’s think, what happened before Israel blockaded Gaza… hm, it’s right there, on the tip of my tongue—oh, that’s right. They sent thousands of rockets into Israel, causing Israel to go into Gaza and take out the terrorists and the rocket factories. The near-daily barrage is now reduced to the occasional attempt to see if Israel will respond harshly to rockets landing (and Israel does). But the AP spin is not quite finished. Now we have to both blame Israel for Gaza’s unemployment. There is, of course, no mention of the lucrative produce market that used to come from the greenhouses in the Jewish towns in Gaza. As soon as Israel left, the Gazans destroyed them, instead of taking them over and using them to employ Gazans. Note also the slap at Israel for refusing to supply concrete and metal to Gaza, which is used to make bombs and tunnels.

About one-third of Gaza’s work force is currently jobless, and 80 percent of the population depends on food aid. While consumer goods enter, Israel still bans exports and many raw materials that could allow Gaza’s factories to reopen.

Israel says those problems are due to the refusal of Hamas – whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction – to engage with the Jewish state.

Israel says those problems are caused by the terrorists controlling Gaza. It isn’t a refusal to engage. It is a refusal to allow Israelis to exist in peace, in the land of Israel.

But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of a great opinion piece masquerading as news.

Posted in AP Media Bias, Gaza, Hamas, Israel | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The starving Gazan myth respun